Isn't 4x5' too small?

[Bruce Watson]

Aside from contact printing, I think there is a definite case of diminishing returns.

+1. Absolutely.

Also, for the same angle of view, 10x8 takes a lens that's twice as long. Then, for the same DOF, you have to go down 2 more stops. Which puts you in reciprocity failure way more often than I'd want. And limits your resolution to the diffraction limit of that stop.

Of course, all that is meaningless is what you really want, is 10x8. In that case, you'll find a way to make it work for you, so go for it. It's about more than just the techie details after all.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Vincent,

You neglected to state why you photograph, why you shoot LF, and what you want to do with your images. Without the info, I can't give you any advice or answers.

[Vincent Malaud]

When I look at the ground glass of my 4x5 Arca-Swiss I feel like I'm looking through a viewfinder.

When I look at the ground glass of my 8x10 KB Canham (which weighs about the same at my 4x5 Arca) I feel like I'm looking through a window.

Well this is exactly what I m looking for, making the act of photographing an act of solemn communication with your subject and by this letting you feel your subject.

I am shooting architecture mostly 70s concrete buildings in suburbs and I feel sometimes that the 4x5 is not an enough tribute to the massive scale of those sites and buildings.

I understand the "diminishing returns" theory but still I won't let it keep me away from doing it, shooting 8X10.

[Michael Graves]

4x5 isn't too small. My Crown Graphic is the perfect miniature camera.

[Struan Gray]

4x5 isn't too small - I am. If I were to take the same photos on 8x10 that I take on 4x5 I would need to extend my arms by 50% or so. Either that, or perfect the camera Hokey-cokey.

[evan clarke]

You could get reducing backs for the 8x10...Evan Clarke

[Steven Barall]

There are many practical considerations. 4x5 is a compromise from 8x10 but 8x10 is a compromise from 11x14 or whatever so I guess you just have to find something that you can work with and stick with it and make the best of it. You always want to use the right tool for the job but you don't always have a back hoe available so once in a while you just have to grab a shovel and start digging.

[BradS]

Yes! 4x5 is too small. Once you look at the ground glass on an 8x10 you will see.

[David de Gruyl]

But carrying an 8x10 and associated holders and tripod is much more ... grueling than a 4x5. Especially when the 4x5 is light and the 8x10 is heavy. My 8x10 tripod HEAD weighs more than my 4x5 camera.

All that being said, I own both and use both. Sometimes you just want big negatives.

[Brian Ellis]

I loved 8x10, it was a great format. But I found that I saw things differently and made very different photographs with it than I did with 4x5. With 4x5 a 210mm lens was my normal lens and I seldom used my 80mm lens. I just didn't see "wide angle" when using 4x5. With 8x10 it was the opposite - I tended to see things much wider. A 210mm G Claron lens became my normal lens with a 159mm Wollensak also used much more often than the longer lenses I bought because I thought I'd "see" 8x10 the same way I saw 4x5. My 8x10 cameras had plenty of bellows extension so it wasn't a matter of mechanics, for some reason - possible the size of the screen - I just saw things differently with 8x10.

There's a lot more to using different film formats than just the size of the film, the weight of the gear, or its cost.